The Best Caliber for a Tactical Situation

[njtrigger]

Nowadays you have 4 choices for the self defense caliber in a semi-auto. The 9, .357, .45 and the .40.

Now I have read many discussions on the stopping power which is arguable, but I believe the most important aspect is how managable the caliber will be in a tactical situation.

I have not fired rounds in anger, but only on ranges so I do not actually know what it would be like in a tactical situation. I do know that the .40 has a lot of kick which makes firing it unpleasant for me. The .357 has a lot of flash and more bang which could possibly blind and deafen you in a close combat night situation. The .45 is better for me then either the .357 or the .40. However, the most managable round is the 9 which is fun to shoot in my opinion and can be done one-handed if needed.

So which round would you choose and why for a tactical situation? Personally, I like the .45.

[Hemicuda]

the best choice is not a caliber at all, but a Gauge... and it is "twelve"

[a1huntingsupply]

So which round would you choose and why for a tactical situation?

I'm not a big 9mm fan but with the right ammunition it's probably the best choice in my opinion. Easier to control and more ammo :D for a SHTF situation.

How many people practice with your weak hand? I do and my XD40 has a little snap to it. The 9mm would be much easier in that type of situation.

I carry an XD40

[jrothWA]

but have the others.
It basically comes down to what you are comfortable.
I do not feel under-armed with my 9's, I use the Hornady 124gr XTP & FMJ-FP commercial loads and reload the same for practice.
For the revolvers, use the Hornady 140gr XTP for .38Spl & .357

Get comfortable and practice, find a bowling pin shoot the combination of time and need to have clean hits will help.

[timothy75]

Handguns are poor stoppers so you'll probably have to give em a few anyway. Whats the difference if you have to shoot them 6 times vs 5? Go with 9mm if you feel it gives you a practical advantage. Good luck

[eltorrente]

To me, the .45 seems like the perfect round.

Big heavy bullet, very easy recoil (surprisingly easy for new .45 shooters), and a proven round. Even if your hollow point doesn't expand properly, or at all, you still have an effective bullet. If high capacity is your thing, there's high capacity .45's outthere to choose from.

Speaking of high capacity stuff, that doesn't matter here in California. 10 round mags are the limit, so you can choose to have 10 rounds of 9mm or 10 rounds of .45. I'll take the .45, thank you.

I think a lot of people don't get a .45 because they think it'll be a heavy recoil, or perhaps uncomfortable/unwieldy, but in fact that is very far from the truth. It's not even an issue at all. I've never shot a .40 or .357Sig, but just from what most people say, both of those rounds have a more uncomfortable recoil than the .45.

[Day Dreamer]

the best choice is not a caliber at all, but a Gauge... and it is "twelve"

Quoted for truth.

[Mannlicher]

.38 Special is a good choice. With modern bullets, and a good weapon, its easily up to the task of self defence. Moderate recoil, good accuracy, exellent performance.

[Creature]

I look at 9mm and 45ACP this way: would a BG rather be hit with a 100mph baseball or a 75mph bowling ball? The fast ball would definitely leave a mark...but a 75mph bowling ball, well...owww.

The slower but heavier 45ACP is my choice. However, the accuracy and controllability of 9mm is hard to argue.

All that aside, the 38Spl is actually what I usually carry because the package that shoots it is so easy to carry (my snubby). And I don't feel under armed with my snubby loaded up with 110gr Hydra-shoks.

[threegun]

If you follow logic then the 9mm is the round to go with.

Since we know that handgun rounds are poor stoppers and multiple hits are not only better but often necessary, then logically shooting the handgun caliber that offers the most manegable recoil is going to be best. It gives you the fastest followups.

That said I'm carrying the 40 LOL. My three fighting calibers are 9,40,45. With the 40 getting most of the work.

[Spade Cooley]

Yesterday I heard the old story about the fighting of our forces against the Phillipino natives. You know, the one about the 38 not bringing down the charging hordes and our forces having to switch to the 45. Someone brings that one up at least once a year.

In todays world we have an entire new line of bullets for our pistols that have a lot more stopping power. I will always go for shot placement and what I can shoot most accurately. Cal. is not a big factor with me.

Look at the numerous callibers available for deer hunting. Most of them will do the job if we do ours.

[njtrigger]

The development of the .45 was done using real animals and ultimately tested on real humans in the Philippines.

Even though this was nearly 100 years ago, the results speak for themselves. They used .38s and didnt feel that they worked. Then they developed the .45 through experimentation on animals. The new caliber was then given to the soldiers to test out on the battlefield which they did and they were very satisfied with the results.

Now such testing cannot be done today because of ethical standards. I believe they developed the .45 not just for stopping power, but they also took into account other factors such as usability in a tactical situation. They designed the .45 for a soldier in close combat where the rifle could not be practically used (like in tight cave or bunker).

The 9 mm, I believe, is more for a soldier when his rifle has failed or he can no longer use his rifle out on the battlefield. Lets say his arm gets shot or hit with shrapnel and he can only use one hand then the 9mm, I believe, is the best choice. The 9mm has range and low recoil.

There was a video of where a motorist in Kansas City was shooting at a police officer. He got out of the car, quickly banged off a bunch of rounds and escaped into the distance. Now thats how the 9 should be used. Lay down cover fire to get everyone's head down and then quickly retreat.

The FBI director who had testified in front of Congress stated in an interview that he would have went with the .45 except that months before the Army had argued that they wanted the 9 mm. Therefore, he couldnt just say he wanted the .45 so they developed the .40.

The .357, in my opinion, just has too much flash and bang. Lets say I wake up and need to use the pistol. Im not sure how that extra flash and bang would help me out in a dark environment where I am half-asleep. I think it would further disorient me. The .40 is just too much and requires a strong hand.

[threegun]

There was a video of where a motorist in Kansas City was shooting at a police officer. He got out of the car, quickly banged off a bunch of rounds and escaped into the distance. Now thats how the 9 should be used. Lay down cover fire to get everyone's head down and then quickly retreat.

The 40 and 45 are quite capable of doing the same thing.


They designed the .45 for a soldier in close combat where the rifle could not be practically used (like in tight cave or bunker).

The 9 mm, I believe, is more for a soldier when his rifle has failed or he can no longer use his rifle out on the battlefield. Lets say his arm gets shot or hit with shrapnel and he can only use one hand then the 9mm, I believe, is the best choice. The 9mm has range and low recoil.



The handguns job regardless of caliber is as a backup to a better weapons system or if a larger system cannot be deployed like in a vietnam tunnel etc. Caliber is irrelivant as long as it has sufficient penetration to reach the vitals and sufficient mass to bust any bones in the way.


The 9mm is capable of ending a threat at close quarters just like the others and the 45 is capable of ending a threat at distance just like the others.

[easyG]

In my opinion, the 9mm pistol is the best compromise between on-the-scene lethality, portability, concealability, and round capacity.

So for me, a 17 round 9mm pistol (like the Glock 17) is nearly perfect for most tactical encounters:

It has high magazine capacity.
It offers good accuracy with very low recoil (even if fired with one hand).
It is lethal with proper shot placement.
It is light weight and easily concealed.
And very reliable.

[mattro]

IMO

If you have to throw a piece of lead, why not throw the biggest?

Our troops in the middle east are finding the 9mm to not be effective, they are too fast and too small, like the 5.56. Zipping a small, clean hole through a body doesn't do much damage. 10-20 rounds of poorly placed .223 or 9mm does little to stop a bg.

Shot placement is everything, even a 22lr will do better than a 45, with better placement; but, damage is the name of the game, and the bigger bullet always wins.

This is why the military is moving away from the 5.56, and away from the 9mm.

[threegun]

The issues with the 5.56MM are recent and have a reason. The move to heavier projectiles coupled with using them in shorter M-4 barrels combine to reduce the velocity below what is required for fragmentation. This turns a seriously effective bullet......the 223/5.56mm into an icepick. Not the rounds fault. 55 grain bullets work in both barrel lenghts.

As for 9mm vs 45 in military applications of course the 45 will win. Geneva requirements stack the advantage to slow and big bullets. Hollowpoint for either one would increase effectivness. The faster the bullet the higher the increase in effectivness from ball to hollow points.

[Ian2005]

A .45 bullet basically a 1/2 inch of lead punching through someone, and while I like my 9mm and am good with it, after seeing the holes in the paper caused by a .45, well it's obvious why the round has been with us for 100 years.

[threegun]

.451inch minus .355inch is less than one tenth bigger. Will the badguy be able to notice the difference?

[easyG]

If you have to throw a piece of lead, why not throw the biggest?
All handguns are a compromise.
You have to balance many different factors...

A bigger slug generally means more recoil, more weight, less rounds, and a larger and bulkier pistol.

Not to mention the fact that the size of the slug does not always dictate it's effectiveness...

The .357 magnum has a fantastic reputation as a man-stopper (arguably better than the .45ACP), but it certainly is not the biggest slug around.
I guess velocity counts for something.
But, IMO, it also sucks to shoot in a light-weight, snub-nose, .357 mag revolver.

This is why the military is moving away from the 5.56, and away from the 9mm.
Don't believe the gun magazines...the military is not moving away from the 9mm any time soon.

[njtrigger]

The .357 Magnum is good at what it does no doubt, but there is a reason for the "FBI loads" and the "Chicago loads". Its because the full power 357 Magnum was a beast. Too loud, too much kick, too much blast. Its a nice manstopper but not a real great tactical weapon.

[Double Naught Spy]

Now I have read many discussions on the stopping power which is arguable, but I believe the most important aspect is how managable the caliber will be in a tactical situation.

....

However, the most managable round is the 9 which is fun to shoot in my opinion and can be done one-handed if needed.

So which round would you choose and why for a tactical situation? Personally, I like the .45.

Given your logic that how manageable a caliber is should be the most important consideration, then by choosing the .45, you have chosen poorly as you feel the 9mm is the most managable.

[workinwifdakids]

The .357 magnum is the self-defense cartridge for the revolver, whereas the .45ACP is the self-defense cartridge for the semiautomatic.

I wouldn't use a .40, personally, because the recoil is more like a SLAP or KICK versus the .45's PUSH.

So, it works out like this:

REVOLVER = 357 magnum, with .38+P as an option.

SEMIAUTOMATIC = .45ACP, or 9mm for cost, recoil, and perhaps smaller hands.

As always, I'm open to changing my opinions and listen for corrective advice.

[Adventurer 2]

Like somebody above mentioned - The Geneva Convention hinders the effectiveness of both the 9 mm and 5.56 mm for the military - full metal jacket. I wouldn't use a pistol in a tactical situation but if I had to - I would go with the highest capacity. All things equal - I'd take the 45.

[mattro]

I am not a pro with ballistics, but here are my opinions.

9mm in a light gun can be very unenjoyable to shoot. Hotter 9mm rounds have a more violent (snappy) kick than a 45. My SA XD9 kicks alot worse than my SA 1911 TRP 45. The 45 feels like a big push, instead of a violent snap. The ability to carry more rounds in a 9mm means nothing to me. 8 rounds of 45 should be enough to end most engagements. The reason a traditional 45 only holds 8 rounds is because the single stack makes for a slim comfortable grip.

The main problem witht the 5.56 is not the reduction in speed, it is the lack of mass. The lower speeds hurt it more, but a 5.56 can never compete with a 7.62, no matter what velocity. 5.56 is my current battlerifle cartridge due to accuracy and convenience, but I know it is a poor man stopper and terrible glass breecher.

357 is an incredible people stopper because it has both, mass and velocity. but is a poor semi-auto pistol cartridge due to the ergonomics that would result from a gun that could feed the cartridge. And the recoil is a problem.

45 works better not just because of a larger diameter, but also due to the mass of the bullet. a 230 grain 45 is double a typical 115 grain 9mm.

Proven results in the battlefield show the 5.56 and the 9mm to be poor man stoppers compared to what we had prior to Vietnam. All of the military will be moving to a larger rifle cartridge (maybe 6.82), and BACK TO THE 45 ACP.

Unless you really like a 1911 (superior in many aspects), get a Taurus 24/7 OSS in 45 ACP, or a SA XD 45 and don't look back.

http://www.taurustactical.com/dsp_247oss.cfm
http://www.springfield-armory.com/xd.php?model=3

[easyG]

All of the military will be moving to a larger rifle cartridge (maybe 6.82), and BACK TO THE 45 ACP.
Larger rifle cartridge? Maybe.

Back to the .45? Yeah, a few special units might.
But the entire U.S. military? Not a chance; the 9mm is here to stay.

[mattro]

Every request for bid from the military for a new gun design have specified the 45 ACP. You're right, most of those have been "Special Operations", but I bet it will go widespread.

[stevekolt]

Personally, give me .45, even though I stock .38, .40, .357, 9mm, .380, and .22 for the handguns I own. That said, part of the reason for the military's use of 9mm is for the sake of compatability between NATO forces. As far as high capacity goes in the 9mm vs. .45 argument, a good answer could be a SA XD45...13 + 1 of .45 is hard to beat :)

[Bruxley]

NJTRIGGER:
Now such testing cannot be done today because of ethical standards. I believe they developed the .45 not just for stopping power, but they also took into account other factors such as usability in a tactical situation. They designed the .45 for a soldier in close combat where the rifle could not be practically used (like in tight cave or bunker).


They were a sidearm for those that didn't carry a long gun. Officers, artillery tenders, pilots, etc.

NJTRIGGER:
The 9 mm, I believe, is more for a soldier when his rifle has failed or he can no longer use his rifle out on the battlefield. Lets say his arm gets shot or hit with shrapnel and he can only use one hand then the 9mm, I believe, is the best choice. The 9mm has range and low recoil.


Soldiers with rifles don't carry a sidearm. But your assertion that the sidearm is used by the above mentioned folks not carrying long arms to keep heads down till you can find cover or your way to a long arm is correct. SF excepted.

NJTRIGGER:
The FBI director who had testified in front of Congress stated in an interview that he would have went with the .45 except that months before the Army had argued that they wanted the 9 mm. Therefore, he couldn't just say he wanted the .45 so they developed the .40.


The 40 was developed after the FBI requested the 10mm and then wanted it in a reduced velocity. The EVENTUAL result was the 40 which is the same caliber as the 10mm but can be easily put on the 9mm frame be reducing the length of the casing.

NJTRIGGER:
The .357, in my opinion, just has too much flash and bang. Lets say I wake up and need to use the pistol. I'm not sure how that extra flash and bang would help me out in a dark environment where I am half-asleep. I think it would further disorient me. The .40 is just too much and requires a strong hand.

For the sake of your long term freedom, DO NOT SHOOT INTO THE DARK;)
There are 5 rules.....live by them.....never vary from them.....one is to be SURE of your target and what is beyond it.

Please don't feel I am picking on you.. if you got that feeling I truly apologize. Good information is the goal here and I just hope to correct mis-information so the it doesn't reproduce it's self as it has a tendency to do.

[Kermit]

I use 9mm, 357 magnum & 45 acp with equal confidence in their effectiveness. The one constant I have is my 12 ga. pump shotgun.

[threegun]

The main problem witht the 5.56 is not the reduction in speed, it is the lack of mass. The lower speeds hurt it more, but a 5.56 can never compete with a 7.62, no matter what velocity. 5.56 is my current battlerifle cartridge due to accuracy and convenience, but I know it is a poor man stopper and terrible glass breecher.

The 5.56MM in its original 55 grain 3,250fps form is a devastating wound producer. In small bodied animals like people it is a great stopper. It does lack mass and that kills penetration into larger animals and hard objects......even glass. It does have limitations because of the penetration but it has advantages as well. It allows soldiers to carry more ammunition in the same weight and its reduced (almost nil) recoil allows for much faster engaging speeds.

Don't be fooled into thinking that the 762 ball is a magic fight stopper. I heard a soldier telling his story of how he and his team of 4 men were under attack by 200 taliban fighters. One of his men was shot by small arms (762x39) at least 4 times yet was still alive and fighting back. He finally died along with 2 other team members. I can't remember for certain but I believe all had been shot multiple times and hit by shrapnel. Had this happen with the 5.56 it would be blamed on caliber the .30 however gets a free ride.

[mattro]

If I had to be put down with a firing squad, I would hope they are using 7.62x54, not 5.56.

[threegun]

Mattro, Dead is dead. Using that logic you should have asked for a 50BMG or heck maybe even a cannon round LOL.

Having seen the results of a 223 round on deer, albeit a soft point, a human just isn't likely to survive a hit to the chest from a 5.56MM projectile traveling over 2800fps, the speed needed for disintegration. My deer ran less than 40 yards and was on the full run when shot behind the shoulder in the lung area. Field dressing showed complete destruction of the lungs.

[njtrigger]

If you go to any stories about those who lived and got a medal of honor, you will find many soldiers who were shot multiple times by rifle rounds and survived. I guess you just have to get lucky and not have the rounds hit anything vital.

It is possible to survive a rifle round, although, I think it not probable.

[eldogg4life]

Being 23 years old, I consider the deaths of both Biggie Smalls and Tupac Shakur to be a reminder that even a "little" 9mm round can put you to sleep for good.

Then again Tupac was shot before the shooting that claimed his life and lived. He took 6 and lived.

Shot placement is the genesis of tactics...

eL

[David Armstrong]

There is no "best", only "different". What is best for one tactical situation might not be best for another. Any of the basic fighting calibers are fine for the job if you do your part, and none of them are good enough if you don't do your part.

[ATW525]

Use what works for you. I personally usually carry either a Glock 19 9mm or a S&W Model 25 .45 ACP. However, f I knew I was going to get in an unavoidable gunfight and could only bring a handgun, my choice would likely be a .44... why settle for fast and light or slow and heavy when you can have fast and heavy instead? :D

[Tanzer]

Here we go again...

[Rifleman 173]

To me, it is the tactics which make the ammo more effective as well as shot placement. A 9mm through the head is probably more effective than a .45 in the chest. Two to the chest and one to the head at close range has always been effective no matter the size of the bullet. If you can deliver the 2 chest shots and 1 to the head with speed and accuracy then that is the right pistol ammo choice for you. My favorite over all shooters are the .40 and the .45 bullets but I would not hesitate to carry a 9mm handgun into battle as a back-up to my 7.62 or 6.8 SPC rifle which I would be issued.

[golf97]

Soldiers with rifles don't carry a sidearm. But your assertion that the sidearm is used by the above mentioned folks not carrying long arms to keep heads down till you can find cover or your way to a long arm is correct. SF excepted.

Thats just simply not the case. At all. Specialty units or not, many carry both.

The reason for the 9mm is because of NATO and capacity. Much of the force can't shoot too well, so capacity is key. Its pretty simple.

Yes, 7.62 and .45ACP are much more capable killers, but capacity is key.

NATO is no excuse for the 5.56. I think beurocrats and their view of women not being able to handle the round is the reason for not switching to the 7.62.

Yes, they test .45, and yes, they test other rifles and other rifle rounds. Every single time, our current weapons get beat up pretty bad, and every single time they say it will be too expensive. Why even conduct the tests?

[Boris Bush]

mattro


I would hate to carry 610 rounds of 7.62 and have to run, jump over 6-7 foot walls all while being shot at and wearing body armor in 140 degree weather with no clouds to shade you.

Proven results in the battlefield show the 5.56 and the 9mm to be poor man stoppers compared to what we had prior to Vietnam. All of the military will be moving to a larger rifle cartridge (maybe 6.82), and BACK TO THE 45 ACP.

Sounds like you have never been there.

While I never killed anyone with a 9mm over there, the 5.56 did just fine for me and we mainly carried M955 ball, the stuff with a tungsten carbide core. Or as you would know it, armor piercing. It still has a air pocket upfront and will still tumble in flesh, it just dont fragment.

It did just fine with controlled pairs and headshots for me.

[STLRN]

Proven results in the battlefield show the 5.56 and the 9mm to be poor man stoppers compared to what we had prior to Vietnam.

Do you understand that the number one killer on the battlefield during that period of time was not small arms fire? Historically artillery and explosives have killed 9-10 times as many people as small arms fire.

[Perldog007]

I honestly don't know which round is "best". Seems like they all have their moments and ideal uses. Hope I never find out and concentrate on shot placement in the meantime.

[Erik]

All of the above will do in backing up the sbmachine guns, automatic rifles and shotguns typically present in tactical situations.

But I guess that statement hinges on what tactical means.

[TacticalDefense1911]

I look at 9mm and 45ACP this way: would a BG rather be hit with a 100mph baseball or a 75mph bowling ball?

I'm sorry, but that is not even close to a good comparison. The differences between a 9mm and a .45 are no where near as drastic as that comparison might say.

Bottom line; the best the self defense caliber is the one you feel the most confident with. All of those calibers are up to the task given the right ammunition is used. Tactics, accuracy and ammunition selection are far more important issues than caliber. If you handle the 9mm the best and feel most comfortable with it then you already answered your question.

[IdahoG36]

I keep a Mossberg 590 loaded with 00 buckshot and a Wilson Combat Protector loaded with 200gr +p Speer Goldots next to my bed. That oughta cover any situation that's likely to occur.

[Socrates]

I've said this before, but, handguns can often be used in place of rifles, and, they are concealable, and, some of them are NOT limited by the choices mentioned earlier. The .500 JRH, .475 and .500 Linebaugh, all with 'light' 325 grain to 400 grain Hawk bullets, or even XTP's, are going to effect the target much like a 375 H&H rifle, and, they can be carried in one hand, when going to the door, and, if you live on a ranch,
or in Alaska, they at least give you a better then middling chance against bear, moose, elk, or a bad guy in cover.

[Lawyer Daggit]

What tactical situation?

Obviously the more manageable power the better. But you have to factor in concealability and carryability.

ie I regard the Soviet Makarov to be probably a better pistol for soldiers than a large Beretta or Browning? - despite the fact that a full size 9mm or 45 is a better killer. Why? when you look at all of the kit that a soldier winds up needing to carry at the end of the day it comes down what compromises he has to make in terms of gear carried in order to reduce the weight of his kit. ie if I pack the pistol do I have to leave some granades behind.

Also If the enemy can see I am carrying a pistol it identifies me as a more valueable target than someone who is just carrying a rifle - ie I am potentially an Officer or a highly trained specialist assett and not merely a rifleman.

[Double Naught Spy]

So njtrigger, if you feel the best caliber is the one that is most managable and that the 9mm is the most managable (out of the choices you provided), then why would you hamper yourself by going with .45?

The development of the .45 was done using real animals and ultimately tested on real humans in the Philippines.

Given that the .45 acp was developed in conjunction with the 1911 and given that the war in the Philippines was long over, I don't think your information is correct that the .45 was tested there. Yes, they used the .45 Colt in the Philippines, but not the .45 acp.

The new caliber was then given to the soldiers to test out on the battlefield which they did and they were very satisfied with the results.

You mean several years later is WWI?

Now such testing cannot be done today because of ethical standards. I believe they developed the .45 not just for stopping power, but they also took into account other factors such as usability in a tactical situation. They designed the .45 for a soldier in close combat where the rifle could not be practically used (like in tight cave or bunker).

As noted, the 1911 wasn't so much developed for tactical situations as it was an officer's gun. I guess you are suggesting officers were used for clearing caves and bunkers and the like?

[Tamara]

So which round would you choose and why for a tactical situation?

Best caliber for a "tactical situation"? So far, the proper application of tactics has allowed me to largely avoid situations. ;)

I believe they developed the .45 not just for stopping power, but they also took into account other factors such as usability in a tactical situation. They designed the .45 for a soldier in close combat where the rifle could not be practically used (like in tight cave or bunker).

The "tactical situation" that the 1911 was developed for involved a guy on a horse, which rarely occurred in caves or bunkers.

[Double Naught Spy]

LOL - no subterranian calvary?

Didn't they use Little People on those minature Scottish mine horses for that? :D

[IdahoG36]

The developement of the .45 was done using real animals and ultimately tested on real humans in the Philippines.

The .45 acp was not developed because of the Morros in the Philippines.

This is an incorrect myth that is widely believed and circulated.

Straight from the 2006 Guns and Ammo Book of the 1911-

"The Army wanted the .45 to knock down Moros in the Phillipines-
Oh, puh-leeze. Yes the Army was not at all happy with the performance of the .38 Colt during the Phillipine insurrection. The real reason we got a .45 and not a .38/9mm pistol? Cavalry. A century ago, the cavalry was the prestige branch of the service. It was what Delta, Rangers, Recon, and Spec Ops are today. If you wanted to be "somebody" in the Army, you had to have commanded a cavalry troop. And the biggest problem any calvary unit would face was...cavalry. Stopping a man was one thing, but getting a horse to quit was something else."
"Ever wonder why the Thompson-LaGarde tests were done on cattle and not goats? Because everyone involved was more interested in what handguns (the premier arm of the premier branch of the service) would do to horses. Oh yes, they tested on cadavers, but the live subjects weights starting at 1,200 pounds. It wasn't 140-pound Moros they were worried about but 1,400 pound chargers. Stop the horse and you stop the charge. That it did well on people was a bonus."

[Tamara]

The real reason we got a .45 and not a .38/9mm pistol? Calvary. A century ago, the calvary was the prestige branch of the service.
FWIW, "Calvary" is a hill in the Bible, "cavalry" is guys on horses. :)

[IdahoG36]

Thanks Tamara. I had to fix my spelling of cavalry about five times.:D

[Bogie]

The best caliber for a tactical situation is a NEF HandiRifle chambered in .45-70...

[mordis]

I keep seeing it repeated several times in this and other threads, about how the U.S is switching from 5.56 to some bigger caliber. I know that the Military was testing the 6.8spc and the 6.5grendel for the use in spec ops teams, but to the best of my knowldge neither of those were adopted on any large scale. I have not seen nor heard any thing on the net regarding some wholesale switch to a bigger rifle round.

So, to the 2-3 guys here that keep saying that the military is switching wholesale to bigger RIFLE bullets please post links and or some form of proof. I know they did some requests on a new .45 gun for the USSOCOM, but that is a limited force, and according to what i have read, even if it was adopted the entire rest of the military will still use the m9.

Again please post some citations and proof, that clearly states that the military intends to switch wholesale to a bigger rifle round.

[STLRN]

True during the Morro uprising there were complaints about the 38s, However there were also complains about the 30-40 Krag, 45-70, 45 Colt and the 12 Gauge shotgun when shooting Morro warrior who were both on drugs and tied what were in effect tourniquets to the arms and legs prior to charging the American lines. So the natural solution was adapt a round with similar terminal performance to what already was complained about.

[Chui]

Practically speaking it won't matter. All of the calibers mentioned (9mm, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, 10 mm) are all effective.

I guess what you're really asking are the mechanisms by which a bullet destroys tissue and which caliber best offers this.

Before anyone tries to answer this it should be mentioned that bullet construction is probably more important than "caliber" (of the ones listed).

Take Federal HST for example. The gelatin tests all look very similar with bullets nearly doubling in expanded diameter and all penetrating within 1/2 inch or so of each other.

Therefore, when I say "it doesn't matter, it's all about placement" and your ability to manage recoil adequately for whatever your Accuracy-Speed criteria may be.

[Para Bellum]

9x19. in a Glock 19 with fiocchi EMD ammo. Can't beat that.

[Win62a]

After many years of gleaning Internet knowledge, this sums it up as well as anything I've read.

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j227/shaneme28/joke.jpg

[boltgun71]

The best caliber is the largest one YOU can shoot accurately.

[Covert Mission]

Check out this FBI research paper on Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness

http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm

The bigger the hole the better (and more of them), all things being equal, which they rarely are. Handgun "stopping power" is an exaggeration if not a myth. In a perfect situation all you'd need was a .22, and in an imperfect one, a 12ga might be barely enough.

I carry a 9mm w/premium ammo, and am good with that. When it's not that, it's .45acp w/premium ammo. Rob Leatham carries a .380 I was told, but we're in a different universe, skill-wise. He'd probably be fine with a .22 :D

[Hook686]

07-09-2007, 07:18 AM #12

njtrigger wrote:




...

The .357, in my opinion, just has too much flash and bang (emphasis mine?). Lets say I wake up and need to use the pistol. Im not sure how that extra flash and bang would help me out in a dark environment where I am half-asleep. I think it would further disorient me. The .40 is just too much and requires a strong hand.


I likie to think of it as shock and awe. I carry a .357 in the winter and the 9mm in the summer, I find it easier to conceal the 9mm, but I like the power of the .357 magnum ... 800 ft-lbs is a nice feel in a defensive handgun in my opinion.

[RedneckFur]

Well, that depends on how you define "tatical situation". If thats blasting targets in the action pistol pit while wearing your black BDU's and fantasizing about the day the world ends, probbaly .22lr. You can shoot it alot cheaper than 9mm or .45.

for self defense, any gun you can conceal comfortably, and shoot acurately. Plenty of people have been killed with BOTH 9mm and .45. Probably more have been killed with .38 special, and more still with .22LR. Nearly any handgun/caliber combination will work if you do your part by shooting accurately. I think if folks concentrated more on accurate shots and not how quickly they could dump a mag of 45 into a target, they'd be getting somwhere.

[LionHunter]

Random thoughts on this thread.

The SAW and the Philippine Insurrection were fought with the primary handgun of the U.S. Army being the New Army Colt DA 38 revolver first adopted in 1891 and firing both the .38 Colt Long and Short cartridges. This was Colt's first swing out cylinder revolver. It was a poor design, tough to work on and firing an underpowered smokeless powder cartridge. It was modified slightly in 1894, 1896, 1901 and finally in 1903, when the barrel diameter was changed, thereby allowing use of the improved .38 Special cartridge, although it was not so marked.

In 1909 the U.S. Army adopted the New Service Colt DA 45 revolver which fired the .45 Long Colt cartridge. Most of the M1909's were sent out to the PI. This was done while the research and development of the Colt Automatic Pistol in .45 ACP caliber was continuing but the need for a more powerful handgun cartridge had become very apparent. By the time the Colt Model 1911 was adopted, the Philippine Insurrection had been essentially quelled. Few M1911's saw action in the PI.

Over a 30 year period of service, my duty handguns were, in order:
Colt M1911A1 .45 ACP
Colt Diamondback .38 Special 4" bbl.
Colt Python .357 Magnum 6" bbl.
Colt Python .357 Magnum 2.5" bbl.
H&K P7 M13 9mm

I never felt under gunned, although I only carried the .38spl 2 years before going to the .357 (we didn't have +P in those ancient times, but we did have Super Vels). I'm not sure what a "tactical" handgun is nor what specific purpose it serves.

[Rangefinder]

So which round would you choose and why for a tactical situation?

Anything black! :D That way it's tactical! Right?

Seriously, they're all effective calibers--that's when it comes down to operator preference and proficiency. Me personally, I go with either a .40 or a shotgun---or both.

[Stevie-Ray]

357 is an incredible people stopper because it has both, mass and velocity. but is a poor semi-auto pistol cartridge due to the ergonomics that would result from a gun that could feed the cartridge. And the recoil is a problem.Owners of the outstanding Coonan would no doubt argue. For my money, it's one weapon that should still be around.

I prefer .45 as my ultimate choice of defense in a handgun round. I do at times carry a Glock 26 though, and never feel undergunned. The others are fine rounds, just will never be my choice.


The best caliber for a tactical situation is a NEF HandiRifle chambered in .45-70...I've said it many times, but the one that got away from me was a Street Sweeper in .45-70.:D

[38SnubFan]

That being said, I think this thread is a repeat that's gone into syndication too many times! :rolleyes:

IMHO, the best caliber for a "tactical" situation (whichever you feel your definition of "tactical" may be) is the round/caliber you can best handle and shoot well under any condition.

I've carried a .38 Special snub-nose for a long time. It is my 2nd preferred caliber next to the .45, but the last time I qualified with the weapon, I managed a score of 197 out of 200. Not bad for what most call an "underpowered" round.

Since then, the significant other is getting my .38 and will soon be going to the range for me to learn its manual of arms and to practice with it since she intends to have it for a CCW once she obtains her PA LTCF. She qualified with the M16A1 in the Navy, so I think the learning curve should be pretty easy for her. My current carry is a Taurus PT 24/7 PRO in .45 with 2 12-round mags. I've tried the 9mm, the .40, the .357...even the .44 Special and .44 Magnum. The .45 ACP, since I've spent so much time with a short-barreled wheelgun, is a caliber whose recoil I can handle with no difficulty and shoot inherently well. I have friends and associates who prefer the .40 and 9mm, but they'll even tell you its a matter of personal preference and what you feel comfortable with.

Like the old saying, "A .22 in the hand is better than the .45 left at home."

I guess I'm done with my short-lived rant. LOL.

BTW, my .38 was my first handgun and the one I said I'd never part with. Then again, the woman in my life was my fiancé when we were in high school and 14 years later we're together again and just as happy as when we were kids. Seeing as fate has come to my favor after all these years, the transaction of giving my prized first handgun to her will be (to me, at least) as honorable as putting a ring on her left hand. :)

Take care and stay safe,
38SnubFan

[MLeake]

I read excerpts from those tests in a Gun Digest back in the '80s. They did the testing on steers at a slaughterhouse. They deliberately avoided shots to brain or heart, wanting to check for non-vital stopping capability.

Effectively, there was none with either round. In virtually every case, the steer was put down with a hammer to end its misery. There was no short-term stopping power advantage to either round.

The only real advantage the .45 had, in autopsy, was a greater tendency to break bones. The author posting the excerpt in Gun Digest postulated that this might make the .45 more effective in an attrition scenario, but wouldn't help in the short term gunfight.

However, Thompson liked the .45, and so he effectively disregarded his own test results.

On a side note, did a boar hunt a few months ago. One hunter in the group used 12ga slugs. Another used a .44mag carbine. Both killed boar, but both required follow-up shots. Boar were able to run 100 or more yards; one holed up in the brush. Saw another guy (not with us) use a crossbow, but not terribly well - hog was down but struggling. He then used a S&W M640 for the coup de grace. While posing for a picture, he failed to notice the hog trying to get back up... when he heard us yell, he shot it behind the ear again with the .38. (Idiot...) Fastest stop of the day - khukri knife between the ribs. Immediate collapse, bleedout in about 20seconds.

Don't bank on immediate stops with anything. Placement is key; luck helps.

[David Armstrong]

True during the Morro uprising there were complaints about the 38s, However there were also complains about the 30-40 Krag, 45-70, 45 Colt and the 12 Gauge shotgun when shooting Morro warrior who were both on drugs and tied what were in effect tourniquets to the arms and legs prior to charging the American lines. So the natural solution was adapt a round with similar terminal performance to what already was complained about.

LOL, and a big +1. One of the most interesting bits of historical research I've run across was an analysis of firearms effectiveness during the Moro uprising, and it indicated that the failure to stop rate of the 45 was almost identical to the 38. Yet the 38 failure is always talked about, and the 45 failures are quietly ignored.